alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 315 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     December 13, 2001.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1) to close the 
achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child 
is left behind. All points of order against the conference report and against 
its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
PETITION TO: SECRETARY THOMAS E. PEREZ, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Millions of Americans like me are counting on our 401 (k) plans and individual retirement accounts fora secure
financial future — and we've worked hare to build and grow our savings. These plans often involve complex
financial decisions, so many of us have to use investment professionals for guidance. Loopholes in the current
law make it easy for some on Wall Street to take advantage of harcworking Americans and line their own
pockets with our retirement savings. Last year alone, hidden fees, unfair risk, and bad investment advice
recucec Americans’ retirement savings by as muchas $17 billion. It’s time to close this loophole anc ensure a
high standard that holds anyone who gives financial advice genuinely accountable for helping us choose the best
investments. As one of your constituents, I’m counting on you to work to close the loophole now.

Sincerely, 4 Le GL _
DY) Laps: <7 Gee ;

Ms. Sarah Vfosier

Chicago, IL 60617-1846

PLOLSSXXXA YO?Ob)b92?7
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 20 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. DARRICK JERMAINE LONDON, also known as Darnell Wilson, also known as Derick Winston, also known as D-Loaded, also known as Marc Robinson, also known as Daryl Smith, also known as James Roberts, also known as James Robinson, also known as Darrell Johnson, also known as James Wilson, also known as Darrell Kinchen, also known as James Acklin,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 01-6058 (D.C. No. 00-CR-4-L) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , Chief Judge, PORFILIO , Circuit Judge, and BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge.-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Defendant-appellant Derrick Jermaine London pled gu ilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute andto distribute cocaine and cocaine base (crack) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1(a)(1). Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment and, if released, to a term of five years supervised release. Defendant now appeals his sentence. The government has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing defendant’s waiver of h is right to appeal in the plea agreement. In the plea agreement, defendant agreedto waive his right to appeal or collaterally challenge his “sentence as imposed by the Court and the manner in which the sentence is determined, provided the sent ence is within or below the applicable guideline range determined by the Court to apply to this case . . . .” Appellant’s App. Vol. I at 47-48. Defendant specif ically reserved the right to appeal in the event the court departed upward. See id. at 48. Defendant’s sentence, however, was within the applicable guidel ine range and no upward departure was applied.-3-

“This court will hold a defendant to the terms of alawful plea agreement. A defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of the s tatutory right to appeal his sentence is generally enforceable.” United States v. Atterberry , 144 F.3d 1299, 1300 (10th Cir. 1998) (citation and quotation omitt ed). Our review of the plea agreement and the transcripts of the sentencing hearings reveals nothing to suggest that defendant’s waiver was either unknowin g or involuntary, or that defendant was unaware of the consequences of his pl ea. The appeal is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby Senior Circuit Judge
#### § 390.33 Commercial motor vehicles used for purposes other than defined.

Whenever a commercial motor vehicle of one type is used to perform the functions normally performed by a commercial motor vehicle of another type, the requirements of this subchapter and part 325 of subchapter A shall apply to the commercial motor vehicle and to its operation in the same manner as though the commercial motor vehicle were actually a commercial motor vehicle of the latter type. *Example:* If a commercial motor vehicle other than a bus is used to perform the functions normally performed by a bus, the regulations pertaining to buses and to the transportation of passengers shall apply to that commercial motor vehicle.

[53 FR 18052, May 19, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 38744, July 28, 1995]
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 10 Agreed to House (ATH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 10

 Providing for the attendance of the House at the Inaugural Ceremonies 
       of the President and Vice President of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

Mr. Armey submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for the attendance of the House at the Inaugural Ceremonies 
       of the President and Vice President of the United States.

    Resolved, That at 10:30 a.m. on Saturday, January 20, 2001, the 
House shall proceed to the West Front of the Capitol for the purpose of 
attending the inaugural ceremonies of the President and Vice President 
of the United States; and that upon the conclusion of the ceremonies 
the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 
or pursuant to such other concurrent resolution of adjournment as may 
then apply.
                                 <all>
```
1

Brown, Kelly

From: Sasser, Erika

Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:54 PM

To: Brown, Kelly

Subject: FW: NPS targeted W126 secondary standard language

Attachments: NPS comment secondary standard_112414.docx

Please post email and attachment(s) to Ozone NAAQS Rulemaking docket. Thanks

From: Frey, Nathan J. [mailto:Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 3:42 PM 

To: Sasser, Erika 

Subject: FW: NPS targeted W126 secondary standard language 

Here’s the attached NPS language with the reference.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOn-orbit damage detection and health monitoring of large space trusses: Status and critical issuesThe long lifetimes, delicate nature and stringent pointing requirements of large space structures such as Space Station Freedom and geostationary Earth sciences platforms might require that these spacecraft be monitored periodically for possible damage to the load carrying structures. A review of the literature in damage detection and health monitoring of such structures is presented, along with a candidate structure to be used as a testbed for future work in this field. A unified notation and terminology is also proposed to facilitate comparisons between candidate methods.Document ID19910012266Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsKashangaki, Thomas A. L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1991Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-104045NAS 1.15:104045Meeting InformationMeeting: Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials ConferenceLocation: Baltimore, MDCountry: United StatesStart Date: April 8, 1991End Date: April 10, 1991Accession Number91N21579Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 590-14-31-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910012266.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 512.13 What are the consequences for noncompliance with this part? ( a ) If the submitter fails to comply with § 512.4 of this part at the time the information is submitted to NHTSA or does not request an extension of time under § 512.11, the claim for confidentiality may be waived, unless the agency is notified or otherwise becomes aware of the claim before the information is disclosed to the public. If the information is placed in a public docket or file, such placement is disclosure to the public within the meaning of this part and may preclude any claim for confidential treatment. The Chief Counsel may notify a submitter of information or, if applicable, a third party from whom the information was obtained, of inadequacies regarding a claim for confidential treatment and may allow the submitter or third party additional time to supplement the submission, but has no obligation to provide either notice or additional time.
( b ) If the submitter does not provide the certificate required under § 512.4(b) of this part or any supporting information required under § 512.4(c) of this part, or if the information is insufficient to establish that the information should be afforded confidential treatment under the confidentiality standards set out in § 512.15 of this part, a request that such information be treated confidentially may be denied. The Chief Counsel may notify a submitter of information of inadequacies in the supporting information and may allow the submitter additional time to supplement the showing, but has no obligation to provide either notice or additional time.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 21, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00533

- CV

Oscar Leo QUINTANILLA

, Appellant

v.

Andrew Bradford WEST

, Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Tri al Court No. 2016

- CI

- 06259

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The a ppellant ’ s unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply brief is hereby

GRANTED. Time is extended to November 22, 2016.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of November, 2 016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 24-15**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

**KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS** that I, **Peter V. Fazio, Jr.** do hereby appoint Frank M. Clark and Darryl M. Bradford,or either of them, attorney for me and in my name and on my behalf to sign the annual Securities and Exchange Commission report on Form 10-K for 2007 of Commonwealth Edison Company, together with any amendments thereto, to be filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission, and generally to do and perform all things necessary to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present. 

**Peter V. Fazio, Jr.**

**DATE: February 1, 2008**
1210-AB32-2-1091.html[7/24/2015 5:44:49 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvp-3rvf

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1585

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Donna Deason

General Comment

We don't need the federal government meddling in our retirement. Leave our savings alone!
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Mason N. Carter, Chief Executive Officer of Merrimac
Industries, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1.    The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending
            April 1, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
            on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934; and

      2.    The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents,
            in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company.

/s/ Mason N. Carter
-------------------
Mason N. Carter
Chief Executive Officer
May 16, 2006
```
Employment agreement effective September 30, 2002



 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement (this “Second Amendment”), by and between Conrad Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Lewis J. Derbes, Jr. (“Executive”) is hereby entered
into effective as of March 1, 2004. 
  
 W I T N E S S E T H:

  
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have entered
into that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of September 3, 2002, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto effective as of September 15, 2003 (as amended, the “Employment Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to further amend the
Employment Agreement as set forth herein; 
  
 NOW,
THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the continued employment of Executive by the Company and the payment of salary and other compensation to Executive by the Company, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  
 Section 1. Except as expressly amended hereby, all of the terms and
provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise defined herein, shall have the meaning given to them in the Employment Agreement. 
  
 Section 2. Executive acknowledges that subsequent to the execution of
the Employment Agreement, Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:921 was amended to overrule the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court in SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond and related cases to provide that a person who becomes employed by a
competing business may be deemed to be “carrying on or engaged in” that business regardless of whether that person is an owner or equity interest holder of that business. It is the intent of Executive and the Company that if Executive
becomes employed by a competing business, he shall be considered to be carrying on or engaged in that business for purposes of this Agreement and that the noncompetition provisions of this Agreement be enforced to the fullest extent permitted under
such statute as so amended. 
  
 Section 3. Pursuant to the
provisions of Section 4 of the Employment Agreement, the Company and Executive hereby mutually agree to extend the term of the Employment Agreement to December 31, 2005, such extended term to constitute an “Extended Term” as defined in the
Employment Agreement, as amended hereby. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Second Amendment to be duly executed and signed
as of the date indicated above. 
  

			
	CONRAD INDUSTRIES, INC. 
		
	By:	 	/s/    MICHAEL J. HARRIS        
	 	 	

	 	 	 Michael J. Harris
 Chairman, Compensation Committee of the
 Board of Directors of Conrad Industries, Inc.

	
	 EXECUTIVE

		
	 	 	/s/    LEWIS J. DERBES, JR.
	 	 	

	 	 	Lewis J. Derbes, Jr.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 182 (Thursday, September 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 53755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4688]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m. Friday, October 26, 2007.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person For More Information: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-4688 Filed 9-18-07; 10:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on May 22, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities.                

                    The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, NFPA has provided an updated and current list of its standards development activities, related technical committee and conformity assessment activities. Information concerning NFPA regulations, technical committees, current standards, standards development and conformity assessment activities are publicly available at                     *nfpa.org.*

                    On September 20, 2004, NFPA filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on October 21, 2004 (69 FR 61869).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on February 9, 2023. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on April 17, 2023 (88 FR 23471).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2023-18056 Filed 8-21-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Editorial Note on Part 386
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 386 appear at 65 FR 7755, Feb. 16, 2000, and 88 FR 80182, Nov. 17, 2023.

§ 386.52 Appeals from interlocutory rulings. ( a ) *General.* Unless otherwise provided in this subpart, a party may not appeal a ruling or decision of the Administrative Law Judge to the Agency Decisionmaker until the Administrative Law Judge's decision has been entered on the record. A decision or order of the Agency Decisionmaker on the interlocutory appeal does not constitute a Final Agency Order for the purposes of judicial review under § 386.67.
( b ) *Interlocutory appeal for cause.* If a party files a written request for an interlocutory appeal for cause with the Administrative Law Judge, or orally requests an interlocutory appeal for cause, the proceedings are stayed until the Administrative Law Judge issues a decision on the request. If the Administrative Law Judge grants the request, the proceedings are stayed until the Agency Decisionmaker issues a decision on the interlocutory appeal. The Administrative Law Judge must grant an interlocutory appeal for cause if a party shows that delay of the appeal would be detrimental to the public interest or would result in undue prejudice to any party.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) *Procedure.* A party must file a notice of interlocutory appeal, with any supporting documents, with the Agency Decisionmaker, and serve copies on each party and the Administrative Law Judge, not later than 10 days after the Administrative Law Judge's oral decision has been issued, or a written decision has been served. A party must file a reply brief, if any, with the Agency Decisionmaker and serve a copy of the reply brief on each party, not later than 10 days after service of the appeal brief. The Agency Decisionmaker will render a decision on the interlocutory appeal, within a reasonable time after receipt of the interlocutory appeal.
( e ) The Agency Decisionmaker may reject frivolous, repetitive, or dilatory appeals, and may issue an order precluding one or more parties from making further interlocutory appeals, and may order such further relief as required.
[70 FR 28484, May 18, 2005]